|
Post by Abysseria on Dec 9, 2003 8:55:22 GMT -5
Actually, there is such a thing as absolute truth. In the world of skeptics like yourself, nothing really exhists, which means you ought to go shove off and stop bothering us.
In our world, where faith leads to truth, we understand that there are such things as absolute rights and wrongs, and while there are shades of gray, there are most definitely areas of black and white.
Here's a truth for you: The NPO has brought stability to this region. No gray in that. Nothing to debate.
Take your skepticism and head back to ancient greece where socrates can debate you and make you look like a silly little twit.
NPO: 1 Others: -50
|
|
|
A Shame
Dec 9, 2003 17:50:10 GMT -5
Post by Mars Sara on Dec 9, 2003 17:50:10 GMT -5
Ah, damn. Now I gotta get philosophical, and I usually agree with you, Abysseria. ;D Some might say that the world is only what your senses percieve and how you interpret those perceptions, and beyond that, nothing is truly real. So, absolute truth depends on you; it will be different for different people who have different perceptions based on different circumstances. Some people may never find an absolute truth, for others there will be absolute truth in anything. Then again, truth is but a word created by mankind to express a state that cannot be touched or tasted or felt or seen or heard directly. The concept of truth then, may be in and of itself a flawed notion. Other schools say that only what is scientific and numerical is real; the number '2' is real, the feeling 'love' is only a product of the human mind, and does not exist outside of it. Socrates would say, in opposition to the Sophists before him, that there are, in fact, some universally valid and absolute norms. He believed that there are certain truths that anyone can arrive at using their innate reasoning. And now that I'm done with that; I can agree with Abysseria that the 'truth' is that the NPO has made this a stable and peaceful region.
|
|
|
A Shame
Dec 9, 2003 22:22:06 GMT -5
Post by Neo Dystopia on Dec 9, 2003 22:22:06 GMT -5
I wish someone would define how the Pacific is "stable" and "peaceful". These words are thrown around a lot but never explained.
What does "stable" mean in terms of a region? Does it mean that the delegate does not change?
What does "peaceful" mean in terms of a region? Does it mean no spamming and flaming on the civil HQ? Does it mean no coups d'etat for the delegate position? no invasions?
|
|
|
A Shame
Dec 10, 2003 0:56:00 GMT -5
Post by Black Adder on Dec 10, 2003 0:56:00 GMT -5
Stable and peaceful for me means not having to put up with self important sycophants shamelessly ass kissing their delegate whenever they deign to make an appearance on the boards. Franco has always communicated with us in an honest and equal fashion. He makes no pretenses at authoritativeness and approaches his people with respect. Stable and peaceful means not having to wade thru hax0rs and their idiotspeak. Spelling grammar and ideas are the rule of thumb, not 'have you ever had a hippo in your bum?' Franco has my continued support.
|
|
|
A Shame
Dec 10, 2003 1:38:40 GMT -5
Post by Tar A on Dec 10, 2003 1:38:40 GMT -5
Yes, actually, it does. The counter-example would be regions who endorsement swap and change delegates all the time, or places like the West Pacific where they claim to welcome any contenders to the delegate seat but really don't welcome them at all.
stable 1 a : firmly established : FIXED, STEADFAST b : not changing or fluctuating : UNVARYING c : PERMANENT, ENDURING 2 a : steady in purpose : firm in resolution b : not subject to insecurity or emotional illness : SANE, RATIONAL <a stable personality> 3 a : placed so as to resist forces tending to cause motion or change of motion
OK, now you're just mocking us. Obviously it does not mean those things, as we regularly have spamming and flamming on the Civil HQ as well as attempted invasions. All this means is that there are outside forces who seek to destory the inner structure of the Pacific which is in itself very peaceful.
Oops, now I sound like I'm spewing propaganda. Try this.
peaceful 3 : of or relating to a state or time of peace 4 : devoid of violence or force
No violence and force is inside the Pacific. This is indisputable.
|
|
|
A Shame
Dec 10, 2003 8:42:26 GMT -5
Post by Abysseria on Dec 10, 2003 8:42:26 GMT -5
I agree completely with Tar. Well said, Tar. The Pacific is now a bastion of peace and prosperity. My nation has grown from new to its current position - all under Francos.
Abysseria re-afirms its support for our delegate and the NPO.
|
|
|
A Shame
Dec 11, 2003 0:40:13 GMT -5
Post by Neo Dystopia on Dec 11, 2003 0:40:13 GMT -5
OK, now you're just mocking us. Obviously it does not mean those things, as we regularly have spamming and flamming on the Civil HQ as well as attempted invasions. All this means is that there are outside forces who seek to destory the inner structure of the Pacific which is in itself very peaceful. peaceful3 : of or relating to a state or time of peace 4 : devoid of violence or force No violence and force is inside the Pacific. This is indisputable. ;D he he, yes I did have my tongue in my cheek when I wrote that. Your answers are good. I disagree with what you say on "peaceful" though. Personally I do think a peaceful region does mean no spamming, no flaming and no constant attempts at the delegacy. These things cannot really be stopped no matter who the delegate is, but I believe you can't claim that the NPO has brought peace to the region if these things still occur frequently, which we all know they do. Part of the definition of peaceful that you missed: 2 : untroubled by conflict, agitation, or commotion : QUIET, TRANQUIL As for violence and force. Violence is not exactly possible in this game (although I shudder to think what it would be like if it was ). But isn't ejecting nations a use of force?
|
|
|
A Shame
Dec 11, 2003 9:49:27 GMT -5
Post by Abysseria on Dec 11, 2003 9:49:27 GMT -5
I can argue that the NPO has brought more peace to the region than any other delegate has - you have to admit that the spamming and flaming has dramatically decreased in the last few months!
|
|
|
A Shame
Dec 11, 2003 12:08:19 GMT -5
Post by BertramStantrous on Dec 11, 2003 12:08:19 GMT -5
You can't do something as substantial as what the NPO has done and not expect a little resistance.
|
|
|
A Shame
Dec 11, 2003 12:28:28 GMT -5
Post by Tar A on Dec 11, 2003 12:28:28 GMT -5
;D he he, yes I did have my tongue in my cheek when I wrote that. I noticed If this is what you really want from the game, I suggest you stop interacting with other players and only sit around answering issues. I did that for about 6 months, I can tell you, it's the epitome of peace Bingo. Ever have regular looks at other regional message boards, especially the other feeders? Spamming, flaming, what have you, it's all there. Again, if you want completely untroubled, just sit around and answer issues. Or don't play at all . I did leave out this part of the definition for a reasion, but this Pacific is every bit as untroubled as the Pacific under all the previous rules... which isn't to say a lot, but it's no reason to cry about the NPO. Tit for tat. They use force against us, we use force against them. Not a perfect situation, but not one that doesn't exist anywhere else. Surely you don't think Francos is the only delegate to eject people in the history of NS?
|
|
|
A Shame
Dec 11, 2003 23:41:05 GMT -5
Post by Neo Dystopia on Dec 11, 2003 23:41:05 GMT -5
I'm not disputing any of this.
I'm just saying that you can't really go around saying the NPO has made the Pacific "peaceful" when technically it is not. But likewise, I'm not saying the NPO is at fault for the Pacific not being peaceful.
Personally I think peaceful = boring.
|
|
|
A Shame
Dec 13, 2003 0:28:50 GMT -5
Post by BertramStantrous on Dec 13, 2003 0:28:50 GMT -5
It's peaceful in the fact that while people still do make rather unintelligent posts and act annoying, they do so less. This is because there is a punishment for such actions.
|
|
|
Post by Toored2 on Jan 4, 2004 2:11:51 GMT -5
The truth is that Francos didnt really do anything bad. For some reason when somebody ejects a few nations everyone looks upon that nation as if there some new evil power. Now that I have seen the real Pacific I know that Francos isnt the tyrant that he is made out to be. I just hope that one day the whole NS comunity can see that.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jan 4, 2004 3:40:32 GMT -5
They are starting to Toored2. The continued drama of Corinthe and Monte Carlo is highlighting all manner of duplicity with one of our most vocal enemies. Its tough to call Franco evil for drawing up and enforcing the code. At least he has been forthright as to his intention. The PA has constantly sworn to institute democratic government and free speech. When the tables are turned and they are in danger of losing power it becomes acceptable to employ all avenues to retain power. It is their right but the contradiction is sickening, particularily when one is forced to listen to the non stop soap box rantings about how it is wrong.
|
|
|
A Shame
Jan 4, 2004 17:50:14 GMT -5
Post by Abysseria on Jan 4, 2004 17:50:14 GMT -5
And not only that, Adder, but other regions have begun reaching out to the Pacific as a model government - a way to bring stability and order to a turbulent region.
Our dream of the NPO Internationale is coming true!
|
|